4 ms·

> it strikes me that WHO basically lied about masks early on to avoid a panic that compromised mask acquisition for medical needs. This thinking has circulated

> it strikes me that WHO basically lied about masks early on to avoid a panic that compromised mask acquisition for medical needs. This thinking has circulated widely on social media, but I don't see evidence for it. The current WHO line is pretty much the same - they do accept that it may help to wear a mask e.g. in supermarkets, but they're pretty clear that the evidence for community mask wearing being a net positive is thin. The WHO is not a conspiracy.

rattray 6y ago
I don't think you have to consider the WHO a "conspiracy" in order to lose trust in them. For example, many other sources (which tend to elucidate their sources and reasoning more fully) claim, convincingly, that the evidence for community mask wearing being a net positive is quite strong. When WHO claims that it's weak, I lose trust in them.
- randomsearch 6y ago
  > that the evidence for community mask wearing being a net positive is quite strong (genuine question) please could you provide a link to that? I've seen one meta-study that people quote, but I've not seen any evidence that community mask wearing is a net positive in practice.
pbhjpbhj 6y ago
I'm not even sure what I would do in their situation: Do you "lie" (maybe by omission; at least going against the current {at the time} scientific consensus) by saying that 'public mask-wearing provides no benefit' [that's to my recollection their advice around February time when I was considering buying masks] in order to maintain supplies for medical personnel? Or, do you say 'masks limit transmission of ARIs' and risk leaving medical need of masks unfulfilled because mass panic has decimated the supplies? I don't think it's necessarily wrong to lie there (akin to people who say "vaccines are perfectly safe" - the info leaflet disproves that), but it does mean if you're searching for a source of ground truth that you can't rely on them. No conspiracy, other than that needed to protect global populations, is required. I think you'd agree with me that WHO are conspiring to protect the health of global populations. That they would hold this goal above the goal of providing information that is absolutely true is not especially surprising, I think. FWIW: WHO updated the information later such that they offered different mask advice per country (to my recollection), which seems anomalous unless one considers that the advice is tailored according to whether countries had secured supplies. The advice for UK went from "masks do nothing" to "you should wear a mask".
- Izkata 6y ago
  > Do you "lie" (maybe by omission; at least going against the current {at the time} scientific consensus) by saying that 'public mask-wearing provides no benefit' [that's to my recollection their advice around February time when I was considering buying masks] in order to maintain supplies for medical personnel? Or, do you say 'masks limit transmission of ARIs' and risk leaving medical need of masks unfulfilled because mass panic has decimated the supplies? Truth mixed with guilt would've probably been the best path: "Yes, masks might help reduce spread, but doctors and nurses on the front lines are the ones most in need. Please consider donating your spare supplies."
  - pbhjpbhj 6y ago
    Sadly I don't believe people on the end of an anonymous internet purchase would be swayed by that in general.

rattray 6y ago

I don't think you have to consider the WHO a "conspiracy" in order to lose trust in them. For example, many other sources (which tend to elucidate their sources and reasoning more fully) claim, convincingly, that the evidence for community mask wearing being a net positive is quite strong. When WHO claims that it's weak, I lose trust in them.

randomsearch 6y ago
> that the evidence for community mask wearing being a net positive is quite strong (genuine question) please could you provide a link to that? I've seen one meta-study that people quote, but I've not seen any evidence that community mask wearing is a net positive in practice.

pbhjpbhj 6y ago

I'm not even sure what I would do in their situation: Do you "lie" (maybe by omission; at least going against the current {at the time} scientific consensus) by saying that 'public mask-wearing provides no benefit' [that's to my recollection their advice around February time when I was considering buying masks] in order to maintain supplies for medical personnel? Or, do you say 'masks limit transmission of ARIs' and risk leaving medical need of masks unfulfilled because mass panic has decimated the supplies? I don't think it's necessarily wrong to lie there (akin to people who say "vaccines are perfectly safe" - the info leaflet disproves that), but it does mean if you're searching for a source of ground truth that you can't rely on them. No conspiracy, other than that needed to protect global populations, is required. I think you'd agree with me that WHO are conspiring to protect the health of global populations. That they would hold this goal above the goal of providing information that is absolutely true is not especially surprising, I think. FWIW: WHO updated the information later such that they offered different mask advice per country (to my recollection), which seems anomalous unless one considers that the advice is tailored according to whether countries had secured supplies. The advice for UK went from "masks do nothing" to "you should wear a mask".

Izkata 6y ago
> Do you "lie" (maybe by omission; at least going against the current {at the time} scientific consensus) by saying that 'public mask-wearing provides no benefit' [that's to my recollection their advice around February time when I was considering buying masks] in order to maintain supplies for medical personnel? Or, do you say 'masks limit transmission of ARIs' and risk leaving medical need of masks unfulfilled because mass panic has decimated the supplies? Truth mixed with guilt would've probably been the best path: "Yes, masks might help reduce spread, but doctors and nurses on the front lines are the ones most in need. Please consider donating your spare supplies."
- pbhjpbhj 6y ago
  Sadly I don't believe people on the end of an anonymous internet purchase would be swayed by that in general.